The Queen of England passed away at the age of 96. About the queen of a kingdom who takes an active role and is responsible for almost all the problems of the world, especially the problems that the Islamic world is still experiencing. “May my Lord treat him with what he deserves!” I say.
Kingdom by name. Not a republic.
But I see all the politics of the world, even the names of their parties. republican politics They even spread condolences.
Whereas the king/queen is sacred in England! It is both the supreme institution of the executive and the head of the church!
There is no republic but as far as it is seen the people love the queen and cares for all members of the royal family.
World politicians too they don’t criticize England for the kingdom system, on the contrary, they congratulate him for being an example to democracy.
it is too.
Despite the atrocities of the colonial period and the conflicts in some regions at the moment, British foreign policy is still at the root of the British policy on the internal administration of the country. bei of democracy it is called.
The highest democracy in Western countries can be called British democracy.
As of this example, too the main thing is democracy, not republic England is the most specific (concrete) proof of the fact that it is.
Not only in England, but also in Spain, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark there is no republic, there is a monarch but no one criticizes the monarchy in these countries because it is undermined by democracy.
in republican systems If democracy is established, the republic gains meaning. If there is no democracy, it makes no sense to be called a republic.
‘Assad’s republic or Britain’s monarchy?’ You will get the answer, ‘England’.
Because there, the will of the people is fully reflected in the administration. The continuation of the Crown/Crown is an important situation where traditions and cultures are lived!
From this point of view, we can say that the republic was declared in Turkey in 1923, but the republic was established in 1950. The name of that interim period is republic, but in reality CHP is the reign! During that reign, the people condemned the CHP to opposition because it did not contradict the belief values of the people. If the CHP had implemented democracy at that time and responded to the demands of the nation, it would still maintain its position as the largest party today.
The transition to the republic in 1950 also partially passed. Because the governments, the representative of the CHP mentality, have experienced deep laughter. from his tutelage they can’t be saved.
Those tutelage centers did not hesitate to strike a blow to the national will every ten years, and that is why the national will was not fully reflected in the administration.
Yes, it continued like this until it moved to the ministry system.
In Turkey with the ministry system the national will has taken over the management in its entirety..
The oligarchic islands have lost the power to limit the national will!
Desiring to switch back to the parliamentary system is the old Turkey’s aspiration, which aims to limit the national will.
On the other hand, just on the day of the queen of England Izmir Municipality Minister It was meaningful for him to say, “It was 100 years ago, those who ruled these lands were in negligence, misguidance and even treason.”!(Dlalet means guidance, guidance, heresy in the sense of deviance, that’s how much the minister has dominion over his own language!)
If you are the owner of the policies that led to the collapse of the Ottoman state by tricking the British, the CHP mayor, the minister. If he is referring to ttihat ve Terakki, I think I made a good point.
Because the actors of the wrong policies from Izmir to the occupation of Istanbul were those who were running the state and fell into the British trap. Tihad and Progress is management.
This expression is very meaningful if it refers to the fact that a party that adopts the ttihad ve Terakki mentality and that makes politics with their slogans is included in the six tables!
No, the sultan of the day Sultan Vahdettin if he means -which he understands- he’s doing it. Because in the Ottoman dynasty there are people with faulty flaws, but there is no traitor We would like to remind this.
The person who called the Ottoman dynasty a traitor, who brought humanity and justice to the world while the British were holding the royal dynasty’s hand despite its history full of cruelty and blood invasion. amil Tayyar’n deserves the analogy.
Because the one who sent Mustafa Kemal Paay to Anatolia in order to save the homeland, which was invaded by the Union and Progress 100 years ago, Sultan It is the state where Vahdettin is registered..
It was Sultan Vahdettin who gave the start of the movement that prepared the liberation of both Anatolia and Izmir.
In the 21st century, while the British had the royal family to admire the world, Blent Ecevit even ‘Vahdettin was not a traitor!’ Then, it is debated whether the person who called the Sultan a traitor, who ignited the national struggle, as if saying that Izmir got rid of the Ottomans, not the Greeks, was in heedlessness, heresy or treason!
It’s weighing too!